meow said the dog:Champion of the Sun: My son is a lawyer, what does your son do? Oh, he measures otter cock bones. Went to school for it and everything

One of the two of these has the job upon which has the value to the society. Let me provide to you the hint of this it is not the person who does the practicing of the legal field. You are welcome.

I know you're just a gimmick account, but who is gonna help the otter cock bone measurer hold the chemical companies accountable? I'm not sure if otter cock bone school has a course in environmental law as a prereq

Champion of the Sun:I'm not sure if otter cock bone school has a course in environmental law as a prereq

I have not the assurance that law school does the requirement of knowing jack shiat about the field upon which is called the sciences. Oh wait no I do have the assurance of this and the requirement upon it is not there. In the words of those who are other than that upon which is used by me to make the suggestion that what is being done by these individuals is less valuable than the work upon which has been the completion of those who have the law degrees you are the silly individual who probably has jealousy due to the lack of the penis size by you very much OL. I am trying to see this from the one side and the other side but cannot see around you either.

DownDaRiver:So wait a secDo small penises cause chemical pollutants?Or is the the other way around?

We've known for years that certain chemicals deemed fine for use are pseudo-hormones that interfere with reproductivity. But it's only been linked positively to large numbers of fish and amphibians that lack functioning male bits. They even know the chemicals involved and the pathways they interfere with in the body. But because industry pays huge salaries to any scientist willing to talk about confounding factors, the government has chosen to not regulate these chemicals even though the science is well-understood. Basically as long as one or two chemists can argue that there might be another, unknown environmental factor involved then there is no change in how a molecule is regulated.

The fact is that modern compounds are intrinsically dangerous and we don't hold those who use them accountable for exposing the population to higher risks. We socialize those risks rather than adding them into the cost of businesses doing business like we should be doing. Let the consumer pay up front for the damage that their consumption choices cause by requiring much better containment and treatment of higher-risk chemicals. And yes that includes byproducts when chemicals that are released break down.

That is essentially the only way to deal with the situation, but holding companies accountable for the damage they cause is considered socialism while treating the resulting medical conditions is a private health insurance matter.